So...guess I'm the new guy

[Reforged]

Sorry, were you doing an impression or were you just being yourself?
Its a little hard to tell.
I mean I noticed the quotation marks but I didn't notice any change in your mannerisms whatsoever. Its alittle hard to see where your pathetic, needy and desperate for approval personality ends and your wonderful talent for impersonation begins.
Be sure to clarify next time so everyone can be sufficiently blown away by how funny you are and shower you with kudos.

Hey, for the record, I actually LIKE your hoodie.

So there.

I like it too, wish I could find it. Thats a pretty old picture.
My hairs grown considerably. I look similar to a feral Captain Caveman.
I don't really have trouble with Jehovahs Witnesses anymore. The second I open the door they run away screaming "big foot".

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I really want to change the perspective of atheists to whom it seems like science explains everything. They don't realize that crucial aspects of reality are untouched by science, but are dealt with by metaphysics.

They worship Dawkins, but have no metaphysical idol to bestow them with a solid metaphysical or philosophical grounding for their position. In fact, I'll bet less than two dozen users here know who Mackie is. Or his fellow aussie atheist Graham Oppy. They might know Russell. But they won't know Ruse.

They have no idea how important and influential these people were to atheism, and how they did so much more intellectually for atheism than Dawkins could ever hope to do in his wildest imaginations.

[Reforged]

I really want to change the perspective of atheists to whom it seems like science explains everything. They don't realize that crucial aspects of reality are untouched by science, but are dealt with by metaphysics.

No-one here claims science explains everything, yet. It is however the only reliable way we have found to explain alot of the universe around us and our understanding of it expands everyday thanks to the scientific techniques that have been honed and researched by taking into account evidence.
Metaphysics doesn't "deal" with anything. Its a branch of philosophy, an astoundingly unbacked theory if you wanted to be generous.

[idunno]

Vinny I knew you were hiding behind that obnoxious accent!

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I really want to change the perspective of atheists to whom it seems like science explains everything. They don't realize that crucial aspects of reality are untouched by science, but are dealt with by metaphysics.

No-one here claims science explains everything, yet. It is however the only reliable way we have found to explain alot of the universe around us and our understanding of it expands everyday thanks to the scientific techniques that have been honed and researched by taking into account evidence.
Metaphysics doesn't "deal" with anything. Its a branch of philosophy, an astoundingly unbacked theory if you wanted to be generous.

No. It does not even "explain a lot of the universe". There is no "explanation of the universe". There are multiple explanations, each which come with their own sets of metaphysical assumptions that are for the most part unverifiable. You don't learn this in your high school science classes, or even in college science classes. They assume that science is just true, and atoms really look like what the bohr model portrays.

But there is other stuff. Foundational stuff. This is stuff you will only learn about in graduate or postgraduate level philosophy courses. And once you fully realize that there is really very little solid foundation for our scientific observations to make sense, your mind will be blown when you realize the impact this has on your ontological foundations.

If you want to have a head start go look up metaphysics and start reading some intro level stuff. Stuff you can understand without much background.

You will realize that everything science "knows" rests on some very interesting underlying metaphysical assumptions that are not as dependable or proven as you think.

And you NEED to have an underlying theory that serves as a foundation to how you incorporate science into your worldview. You will be surprised that philosophers like Plantinga and Popper have made science more friendly to theists than to atheists, and unless you thoroughly understand arguments like Plantinga's EAAN, you will never truly be able to develop an underlying philosophical foundation that can beat atheists up.

All you will be left with is insulting Christians. But that's for the small fry.

Vinny I knew you were hiding behind that obnoxious accent!

Gabagool! Ei, amico mio.

What, youse actually gonna just sit around here like little Annie meek and mild or youse gonna lay your religious smackdown on all of us little goombas over 'ere?

Come on here!

[idunno]

bet you'd like that, wouldn't you

[Jackalope]

It's your claim. You don't want to defend it, fine. Don't expect to be taken seriously if that's case.

Common knowledge shouldn't have to be defended.

Except that it isn't common knowledge. I'm certainly aware of Platinga's argument against the Problem of Evil - but even that cannot be considered common knowledge. Ask 10 random people about it and I bet you get approximately 9 blank stares.

I'm also aware that many philosophers consider the problem solved.

The PoE comes up here quite frequently, and frankly, I can't recall that there is in fact any kind of consensus on the matter.

The logical problem of evil argument is considered to be resolved by the wider philosophical community.

So, I repeat, for the emphasized portion above, [citation needed].

[The Grand Nudger]

After reading around a bit, I want to make something clear. I'm not here to prove the existence of God, I'll leave that to other theists. As I stated in my response to whateverist, I'm here to clarify Christianity a when I can. If you don't like this, you can simply ignore me.

Fantastic, another one. The last time somebody opened with this line it all went downhill from there.

[Jackalope]

After reading around a bit, I want to make something clear. I'm not here to prove the existence of God, I'll leave that to other theists. As I stated in my response to whateverist, I'm here to clarify Christianity a when I can. If you don't like this, you can simply ignore me.

Right. Because your opinion and/or appeals to authority is going to be so much more persuasive than the other guy's opinion and/or or appeal to authority.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Common knowledge shouldn't have to be defended.

Except that it isn't common knowledge. I'm certainly aware of Platinga's argument against the Problem of Evil - but even that cannot be considered common knowledge. Ask 10 random people about it and I bet you get approximately 9 blank stares.

I'm also aware that many philosophers consider the problem solved.

The PoE comes up here quite frequently, and frankly, I can't recall that there is in fact any kind of consensus on the matter.

The logical problem of evil argument is considered to be resolved by the wider philosophical community.

So, I repeat, for the emphasized portion above, [citation needed].

Go google your own citations. I'm not your tutor. You ain't payin' me. I don't waste my time with people who question well-known developments.

If you're going to approach fundamental, well-accepted positions with skepticism, I'm gonna have to treat you the same way I treat creationists.

We're atheists. We know better than random people.